[GUEST ESSAY] Jason Sanford on the Political Battlefield of Military Science Fiction

In American science fiction circles, one of the easiest ways to start an argument is to mention military SF. On the one hand, military SF is a popular subgenre, represented by many classic and best-selling works and well loved by loyal fans. Opposing that, however, are many other fans who see military SF as glorifying war and violence. Mix in these group’s differing political views and name-calling and fistfights aren’t far behind.

So what is it about military science fiction which creates such political controversy?

To understand this, we should first define the military SF subgenre. David Weber, author of the Honor Harrington series of futuristic space navy novels, describes military SF as “science-fiction which attempts to realistically portray the military within a science-fiction context.”

If defined this way, then military SF has existed from the very start of science fiction, with stories such as E.E. Smith’s Lensmen series and Jack Williamson’s The Legion of Space containing elements of the emerging subgenre, along with such pulp favorites as Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers. However, these early works also fail to capture the complete spirit of modern military SF, and none of these examples give any indication of how controversial the subgenre would eventually become.

So in my view, military SF is more than simply the military in a SF context. Military SF also has a strong political component to its stories, and it is this political aspect which has proven so controversial over the years even as it also provided the subgenre’s life blood.

The first inkling of this controversy emerged not in military science fiction itself but in SF fandom. Toward the end of World War II, Robert Heinlein wrote a letter to well-known SF fan Forrest Ackerman, whose brother had recently been killed in battle. In the letter Heinlein, who had served in the U.S. Navy, explicitly condemned the many SF fans who considered themselves superior to ordinary people yet hadn’t lifted a finger to help win the war. In Heinlein’s words, these fans were “neurotic, selfish, (and) childish” individuals who needed to tackle “the problems of the real world.”

However, if these fans had written their own letter to Ackerman I have no doubt they would have defended their lives and choices in equally blunt terms (after all, there are very few SF fans who aren’t opinionated about life and politics). While Heinlein wrote from a military point of view about his desire for self-sacrifice and a sense of duty, these fans would probably have replied that they supported their country by making their own individual choices. The best way to defend freedom, in this opposing view, was to embrace freedom by living your life the way you choose.

In short, the difference between Heinlein’s viewpoint and that of the SF fans he attacked was in how one’s life should be lived. In the United States, these contrasting military-civilian viewpoints are well established, with members of the U.S. military often viewing themselves as being dedicated to, and sacrificing for, a larger goal while civilians believe in a more self-centered right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” While these differing worldviews are not incompatible—after all, they exist within the same country and culture, with many people believing in both viewpoints—they can and do result in strong political differences among people.

Obviously these political differences resonated with Heinlein because, in 1959, he jumpstarted the military SF subgenre with the publication of his classic novel Starship Troopers. With the novel’s mix of an extremely pro-military viewpoint, strong philosophical underpinnings, and vivid battlefield action, Starship Troopers not only won the Hugo Award but set the standard for all military SF which followed.

Starship Troopers also became the subgenre’s first political lightning rod. Being published at the start of the social protests and cultural changes of the 1960s—which included world-wide protests against the Vietnam War—Heinlein’s novel struck many people not only as a science fiction story but a militaristic manifesto, provoking immediate charges that Heinlein was promoting fascism and glorifying war.

Among the authors making these charges was Harry Harrison, who wrote the satirical Bill, the Galactic Hero (1965) as a direct rebuttal to Heinlein. In Harrison’s novel, military life is shown to be extremely sadistic and unfair. The fact that both Heinlein’s novel and Harrison’s rebuttal found receptive audiences is evidence that these competing viewpoints were alive and well at the time, with each side believing they alone had the correct worldview.

Of course, life is never a simple case of dueling dualities, and this is also the case with military SF. Because issues of war and killing invoke such passion among humans, in the decades after Starship Troopers a number of authors took up Heinlein’s mantel. However, just as people were divided over Heinlein’s novel, so too did these authors express differing views on the military and the nature of war.

For example, in the 1970s Joe Haldeman created one of the first anti-war military SF novels with his Hugo and Nebula Award winning The Forever War, written in direct response to his experiences during the Vietnam War. Likewise, during the same time period David Drake wrote his Hammer’s Slammers series of stories as a SF exploration of his own experiences in that war. Despite the similarity of both authors fighting in the Vietnam War, in no way do their stories support similar political and thematic visions. Instead, these authors approach war and the military in almost completely opposite directions.

A similar thing happened with the other well-known military SF novel of this time period, Ender’s Game by Orson Scott Card. In this novel Card posits the morality of a future kill-or-be-killed war between humanity and an alien race—a war where genocide appears to be the only solution. Just like The Forever War, Card’s novel won the Hugo and Nebula Award; otherwise, though, the novels are extremely different in both their themes, politics, and worldview.

So while military SF must by its nature focus to some degree on politics—tying in with, perhaps, the famous quote that war is the continuation of politics by other means—that doesn’t mean the politics and themes of military SF authors will necessarily agree.

But perhaps the biggest reason military SF remains so controversial is that, just as happened with Heinlein, the subgenre attracts authors who wish to engage on the weighty political issues surrounding war. For example, John Ringo’s Posleen War series (which began in 2000 with the novel A Hymn Before Battle) deals with the total militarization of humanity when faced with genocide by a bloodthirsty alien species. However, Ringo is also an avid political commentator who, like Orson Scott Card, has attracted attention for his outspoken political views. The same with other authors known for their military SF, including Jerry Pournelle and Elizabeth Moon.

There is a tendency to describe military SF as the bastion of politically conservative authors, especially since the authors mentioned in the previous paragraph would fall into that category. However, this isn’t a fair judgment since the politics of those writing military SF spans the political spectrum, as exemplified by authors like Joe Haldeman, Sandra McDonald (who wrote an excellent feminist-oriented series of military SF novels, starting with The Outback Star in 2007), or John Scalzi (whose Old Man’s War was specifically crafted around the same story structure as Starship Troopers even though Scalzi’s politics could not be more different than Heinlein’s).

So will military SF ever escape from this ongoing political controversy?

Personally, I doubt it, although I wouldn’t be surprised if the passions first evoked by Heinlein’s Starship Troopers eventually lessen. For evidence for this trend, look at the reaction to The Lost Fleet series by Jack Campbell (the pen name of John Hemry, with the first novel in the series, Dauntless, appearing in 2006).

The Lost Fleet is military SF in the purest sense, with Campbell using his background as a U.S. Navy officer to create vivid and realistic warfare between space-based battleships. However, Campbell’s best-selling series has found fans from diverse political viewpoints because he focuses not only on the military and war but also dissect such issues as hero-worship, and how the military culture can become both corrupted and brought back to its founding ideals.

Friends from across the political spectrum recommended The Lost Fleet to me, and after reading the series I see why it struck a cord with readers. It is a fun, quick read, full of action, compelling characters, and deeper issues. Exactly the type of story which attracts readers to military SF in the first place.

Not, of course, that this means the battle over military SF is anywhere near an end. Science fiction fans will continue to argue over this subgenre just as we argue over everything we love or hate. But maybe the vitriol we use to debate military SF will mellow out with time.

Or maybe not. In which case it’s “Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!”

Note: This essay was originally published in the Czech SF magazine XB-1.

Like this:

Jason Sanford has published a number of stories in the British SF magazine Interzone, which devoted a special issue to his fiction in December 2010. In addition, his fiction has been published in Year's Best SF 14, Asimov's, Analog, Intergalactic Medicine Show, Tales of the Unanticipated, The Mississippi Review, Diagram, Pindeldyboz, and other places (along with being translated into Chinese, French, Russian, and Czech). He is a three-time winner of the Interzone Readers' Poll and was a finalist for the 2009 Nebula Award for Best Novella. He also co-founded the literary journal storySouth, through which he runs the annual Million Writers Award for best online fiction, and writes a monthly column for the Czech SF magazine XB-1. SF Signal published the English version of this column. His website is <a href="//www.jasonsanford.com”">www.jasonsanford.com</a>.

8 Comments on [GUEST ESSAY] Jason Sanford on the Political Battlefield of Military Science Fiction

Military fiction, much like the military history field, are inextricably linked to politics, because warfare is inherently a political action. There’s quite a few links between the two fields, with military science fiction enjoying some of the same critism as military history: it’s a ‘drum and trumpets’ look at the world, jingoistic, militaristic, and so forth. In some quarters, some of the reputation is earned, but on the other side of the coin, examining military events (real world and fictional) is an excellent way to examine modern day politics and events.

In his essay “Robert” (from REQUIEM (1992)), Spider Robinson gives his eye-witness account of the first meeting of Heinlein and Haldeman at the 1975 Nebula Awards Banquet. Where RAH would receive the first Grand Master Nebula.

—————

“Before the banquet began, I joined the horde of SFWA members loitering in the lobby of the Algonquin, all of us hoping to catch a glimpse of the great man. I overheard several colleagues gleefully anticipating a bloodbath. “Haldeman actually had the nerve to show up,” one of them chortled. “Heinlein’ll rip his head off and drink out of the hole.” Joe Haldeman, it must be explained, had just published his remarkable first novel THE FOREVER WAR. These writers explained to me that since Joe had “stolen” Heinlein’s concept of powered combat suits, and since his book embodied a certain disrespect for military traditions (grunts were required to shout obscene abuse at their officiers every day, for example), Heinlein was sure to go for Joe’s throat if he saw him. After all, everyone knew that Heinlein was a cranky old fascist…

“Robert arrived, and the room swarmed around him. Jim Baen, who loved him more and better than any other editor he ever worked with, took on the task of making introductions. My companions’ eyes lit up as Haldeman appeared, looking apprehensive but determined. Murmurs arose as he moved up the line, and reached the buzz stage as he stepped forward and Baen said, “Mr. Heinlein, I’d like to present Joe Haldeman, author of—“

“—THE FOREVER WAR, of course,” Robert said, striding forward and thrusting his hand out. “It is an honor to meet you, sir. That may be the best future war story I’ve ever read!”

A little while later Joe drifted away, his shoes an inch from the carpet, beaming aimlessly. My companions were quite disappointed…”

I dont think that you have to have politics to have a military SF novel.

Sure there are those that are so heavy handed in politics that IMNSHO they would be more properly called political novels with a coat of olive drab. (ala, Starship Troopers)

But there are also novels which are indisputably military SF, which have no politics, or for which the political is downplayed so much that it might as well not exist. (I would point to Steakley’s Armor – since we have so many other “power armor” novels listed- as an example of this)

In some cases I think that politics becomes a crutch that gets in the way of the story. Now this isnt a problem if you start out knowing that you are writing a politcal book, like Heinlein certainly seemed to be doing, but if you add politics because “everybody knows that military SF has to have politcs”…

Maybe it’s just a case of readers, the ones with strong political views in either direction and consequently having a strong bias regarding anything military, seeing what they want to see in any given work regardless of whether or not it’s actually there.

“But maybe the vitriol we use to debate military SF will mellow out with time.” Yes, I think that’s specifically mentioned in the Book of Revelation.

Maybe a useful conceptual division is between the volunteers and the conscripts. The volunteers think serving in war is honorable, that war can be just, and that killing the enemy is good when it helps to win a just war.

The conscripts think there’s no honor in war, that war is ususally unjustified, and that killing the enemy is bad except as a last resort defense.

The volunteers like the action of war and the power of weapons. The conscripts think it’s repulsive and are sickened by violence.

When you consider how much of our entertainment is about war both formal and informal, it’s pretty obvious most of us fantasize about being volunteers.

If the vitriol mellows out with time, it might only be a sign we are getting desensitized to violence.

Thanks for the essay. There was a panel discussion on this topic at the recent Worldcon in Reno. The fans in attendance were predominantly male & predominantly self-described liberals (guilty on both counts) Point being, authors should not presume too much if they want to keep their audiences over time.

Posted this before – military SF often fails as SF. By that I mean that future militaries are often portrayed as essentially similar to contemporary ones, only with better tech. And the better tech is often just guns that make bigger bangs. The contemporary US military is very different from that of WW1 & that of the War of 1812 because of technology & because American society is very different from what it was a 100 & 200 years ago. Militaries of 100 & 200 years from now will likewise be very different from contemporary ones. (Politics aside, Heinlein’s Troopers was an example of this. His Mobile Infantry was, in some ways, similar to the Soviet Army of his time. And yes, I doubt he would have agreed with that)

There’s a difference between making observations about a political philosophy & commenting about contemporary politics. I recall buying a used paperback to sample a series of military SF. The authors had written a stand-in for then Congresswoman Pat Schroeder into this novel set hundreds of in the future. There was lots wrong of this book, but none more silly.

I do wonder if sometimes “military SF” with less conservative perspectives does not get classed as such? In other words, is there a classification problem when Sanford implies that there is less non-conservative viewpoints?

And secondly, I believe Ringo is a libertarian rather than a conservative, which means he meshes with them in some areas, and liberals in others. So is he perhaps being missclassified on the political spectrum?

I’m not as well read in military SF as I’d like to be, so these are just questions that popped to mind rather than any sort of rebuttal.

Recognition

TSP On This Day

Crowd funding is the in thing for obtaining money to fund a variety of projects, with Kickstarter being the most prominent of these sites. With new projects going live daily, it's a chore to keep up with, let alone find, interesting genre projects. The Crowd Funding Roundup will be our effort to bring projects we think are interesting to your Continue Reading →

The stars of Star Wars: The Force Awakens are on a press tour. Here's a video featuring mini-interviews with Harrison Ford, Daisy Ridley, John Boyega, J.J. Abrams, Gwendoline Christie, Oscar Isaac and Lupita Nyong'o. Watch: Harrison Ford talk about the difference between entering the Millenium Falcon set for the first time in 1977 and again in 2015...and perfecting the Continue Reading →

According to MSNBC, William Shatner is the #1 Overrated Star. No doubt, this has Shatner displeased. Also making the list, Terminator Arnold Schwarzenegger and Matrix star Keanu Reeves. Oh, and Ben Affleck.